The general problem with up-votes, down-votes and no-votes is that the discourse mechanism behind them is so complex that the quality of the comment is only vag

The general problem with up-votes, down-votes and no-votes is that the discourse mechanism behind them is so complex that the quality of the comment is only vaguely related to the number of votes. Sometimes I get lots of up-votes for a casual remark on a general topic, but none at all for a detailed reply on a specific question. When someone makes a false factual claim and is corrected by someone else, the last comment is often up-voted, but rarely is the original claim down-voted because people think the matter is settled. Appart from obvious nonsense, the typical cases for down-votes are not descriptive (what is true or false), but normative comments (what should or should not be the case). Normative comments, such as what user `blueprint` has written, have the tendency that people up-vote or down-vote according to their own, often quite ad-hoc opinion, using the system like a poll. I think that this is not good. Instead, one should either just ignore it or try to initiate a debate. For the vast majority of opinions that contradict one's own, there are plenty of representatives out there who are at least as clever as oneself. Being curious about why they have such a view does not have to mean that one relativises everything. There is almost always something to learn. I also think that we should strive to apply the principle of charity[1] in our responses, mending small flaws or bad rhetoric in a person's statements and instead challenge the essence of her or his thoughts. Although user `blueprint` does not elaborate on his topic, the topic itself is quite interesting. He just worded it a bit clumsily. Its essence may be reformulated as: "Given that an extremly devastating, but also extremly unlikely cosmic event could wipe out humanity in an instant, should we not prioritize to spread out across the galaxy, so that a single event could not affect all of us?" Has this statement the same chance to be down-voted? If this is not the case, doesn't it mean that a down-voter should have applied the principle of charity instead? [1] Wikipedia's definition: "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity